The Future of Britain.

[swerve]

I, for one am very glad we didn't participate in FREMM as we ultimately came out with a more capable (vastly more capable compared to T42 and cheaper to run) ship than we would have done with FREMM. There is a reason why T45 is a more expensive ship (excluding poor management decisions) after all.

FREMM wasn't an alternative to Type 45. T45 was what we developed after abandoning the joint project from which the French & Italians got Horizon. We kept PAAMS from that project, though with SAMPSON instead of EMPAR.

By the time FREMM started, Type 45 & Horizon were already well under way, with three T45s building when the first FREMM development & production contract was awarded. Our participation would have been in place of developing Type 26.

 

[swerve]

Thanks for the missile count and I agree that it looks like Herakles is a passive phazed array. It is also a top radar by one of the leaders in the field, and nothing suggests that it's a bad or inferior radar. It's obvious that a ship needs the radar that can surport and match it's cababilities and intended use, and given that the french navy, unlike the italien and english got carrier borne AEW, maybe the long range surveliance aspect is not as important for the intended use. As to the ability of the radar to detect and react on/to realworld threaths (like low altitude stealthy objects), we don't know how it meassures up against other radars. But aparently the french are content with the performance, else they would probably have got a better radar. F.ex. Signaal (now thales) also offers the APAR-Smart-L radars, which is in use by a number of navies.
And anyway a 3D air range of 250km and an ability to track more than 400 targets, sounds as "enough".

As I read the specs of the FREDA, this ship can combat air threats to the full potential of the ASTER15/30 missile, which incidentially is (exactly) the same missile as the horizon and T45 is equipped with and thus limited by. That FREDA carries 32 ASTERS doesn't seem so low, compared to T45's 48 missiles (according to wiki). If the marginal cost (because the FREEM sisters are being builded regardless) is good, then I have a very hard time seeing why this shouldn't be a very good ship for the french navy.

The French decision not to buy more than two Horizons has always officially been stated as for budgetary reasons. Horizon has S1850M - i.e. SMART-L. The decision to develop FREDA, instead of buying those extra Horizons has always been admitted to have been a financial decision. The lower performance of FREDA compared to Horizon was accepted because a political decision was taken that more Horizons were unaffordable.

At the same time as FREDA was approved, France cut planned FREMM numbers from 17 to 11 - including FREDA. Again, that was a financial decision. Total planned escort numbers were cut from 26 to 18 (both including 5 La Fayette).

None of this means that I think that Herakles isn't a good radar, nor that FREDA is a bad ship, only that one shouldn't think that the choice had anything to do with a perception of operational effectiveness. It was absolutely, 100%, purely, to save money. It was decided that FREDA is the best that could be afforded, although it is not as good as the MN wanted.

 

[StobieWan]

Hasn't boeing already started work on a 6th generation fighter to replace the f-18e. there have been a few artists impressions in airforces monthly.

Have a look at when the first concept art for the eventual F22 started appearing vs when the ISD happened and you'll have some idea why I'm intensely skeptical of it appearing in ten or fifteen years.

Boeing will be super keen to promote the idea of a sixth generation fighter as they're effectively out of the market once their F15 and F18 lines close - they need to find something to sell, hence their promoting various warmed over versions of those two products.

Ian

 

[Palnatoke]

@Swerve

Totally agree that the french looked at their wallets and aligned/optimized their plans to that, I find that very prudent.

I also believe that in a cost benefit analysis the FREDA will be the far better choise than horison/T45: Perhaps not that effective in primary role (though I belive that the differens, looking at the spec list, isn't that big) but much cheaper.

 

[overlander]

But on average, much more capable transports. France has C-130, Transall, & CN-235. The UK has C-17, C-130J & some older C-130. One C-17 carry more load than all 14 AdlA CN-235s combined, & even if you disregard the CN-235s, you need to adjust for payload/range. The Transall was a very clever design, maximising payload & volume in proportion to aircraft size (80% of C-130 payload on half the engines), but that was done at the expense of range. For use within Europe, that was not an important limitation, but it is now, when transport fleets are being used over much longer ranges.

You never miss a chance to knock the British forces, do you?

I am not knocking nobody, british politicians are knocking the armed forces, they are scrapping them , here another example.
‘Second Libya’ would stretch Britain, say MPs | Defense & Security News at DefenceTalk

 

[RobWilliams]

I am not knocking nobody, british politicians are knocking the armed forces, they are scrapping them , here another example.
‘Second Libya’ would stretch Britain, say MPs | Defense & Security News at DefenceTalk

British politicians have always downplayed the capability of the UKs armed forces, always have and always will.

However in relation to your specific comment about reducing the Hercules fleet

In the wikipedia I have read that the force of hercules tramsport aircraft have been reduced to 30 ?? , they were originallly nearly 55, so habe been reduced to nearly half bringing the total numers of RAF transport planes to only 30 nearly half the numbers in the french air force

You are only comparing quantity, not capacity/quality. The RAF has a larger cargo capacity than the French air force, then when some C-130s get replaced by the 25ish A400Ms (which in turn have a larger capacity than the C-130s) it'll if anything probably increase the RAFs transport capability.

If you were trying to complete an objective analysis of the reduction of the Hercules fleet you would have gone further than just saying "well the French have 2x as many planes" and would have given the RAF a fair acknowledgement in that it has a larger capacity as a transport fleet.

Sure, "quantity is a quality all of its own" and all that, but it's not completely down to the size of a transport fleet that makes it "better", its how much stuff it can carry.

 

[Astute]

Hi all , I see the RAF are getting another c17 this is good news its a very good aircraft it does a great job a real trooper so this brings the number in RAF service to 8 (some more please DC oh and some more 45s and astutes)
Any way just a thought on the A400m , Britain signed up to 22 aircraft for the purpose of replacing the older hercules Ks , but i was wondering how are the Js doing there airframes must be taking a hammering in on going operations. these were not to be replaced untill the 2030s at current rate they will never get anywhere near the late 2020s so will the 22 A400m replace the whole hercules fleet that would be a real drop in numbers even though the A400ms carry much more and alot further they can not be in two places at once ,,,,,,,,,,, any thoughts

 

[swerve]

AFAIK we don't have many C-130Ks left, & the A400M will also be replacing worn-out C-130J.

 

[Astute]

i have been trying to get some up to date hercules fleet numbers and they range from 32-50 mixed Ks and Js but your right there arent many Ks left 8-10 i think

 

[the concerned]

when the A-400m's come on line what are the chances of putting a few of the C-130'S through and update and give them to the special forces. Maybe and i know i'm wishing put say 4 of them into AC_130 spectres which is what we have needed for years especialy in conflicts like afghanistan

 

[Astute]

Now theres an idea a few spectres would be very useful , im sure the lads on the ground in operations would think so to, would the MOD put money in to doing this i dont know, but i dont think it would ever happen,
I think if any money is available it must go to other programs to help in the recovery of some of the lost UK defence capabilities MPA for example and getting are 45s which are fitted for fitted with what they should have/
Im really hoping the defence budget will be shorted out .for the 2015 defence review so we can start to up are game defence wise and get what the armed services need even if its off the self, i think 2015 will be a big year for UK defence,

 

[Jrf95]

Well the future for Britain isn't looking too bleak. As during this Summer, I spoke to Air Commodore Stubbs, of RAFC Cranwell, and he told me that the RAF shall be starting to recruit alot of new aircrew (Officers and NCO's) during 2014. It looks as though these new aircraft we are getting shall be the start of something good for Britain.

 

[Comrade69]

Well, here is MY take on Britain in today' world(strictly military)
Military wise they are one of the worlds foremost powers...everything they have is pretty damn impressive technology wise...plus they got BAE systems that make all kinds of upgrades on their stuff from Air force to Navy...

They have IMO the most advanced Navy in the world, nothing can touch a Type 45 destroyer, and in their skies they the Eurofighter that will soon be joined by the F-35...that's pretty damn impressive. And on the ground the Challenger 2 is one of the best tanks around.

The ONLY difference between the "old" England(that ruled multiple colonies around the world) and today's "new" England is IMHO they have no real offensive capabilities. And I hope I dont offend any British person in here but the UK is a perfect helping hand to the US, like the NATO missions they carry out together. UK is a great assistant country to its Allies...

But alone I dont see how they have any offensive capabilities..

That being said, I also believe that next to the US, UK is the hardest country in the world to attack. Since their around water, you would have to get past their Navy which is nearly impossible..and the country is small so everything is compacted together, its like going into a Bee Hive...


Sorry towards the end I went a little off topic but overall I do think that UK carries a very strong presence in the world both political and military.

 

[hauritz]

Realistically Britain is a population of 60 million people out of a world population of around 7 billion.

Its time of being the pre-eminent world power has long gone. The British empire is now an empire in name only. Its role as military protector of that empire is over.

Obviously it will need to be able to protect its international interests ... but what exactly are those interests and could Britain realistically deal with these on its own?

The last time Britain carried out a large military operation on its own it was to protect the interests of a couple of thousand shepherds in the South Atlantic against a poorly equipped and trained Argentina, and even that operation could have quite easily ended in disaster.

 

[swerve]

The British empire is now an empire in name only.

Nope. There is no such thing as the British Empire. So it is not 'an empire in name', any more than the Russian Empire, or the German Empire.

The last British monarch to be titled Emperor died 60 years ago.

 

[StobieWan]

The last time Britain carried out a large military operation on its own it was to protect the interests of a couple of thousand shepherds in the South Atlantic against a poorly equipped and trained Argentina, and even that operation could have quite easily ended in disaster.

Well, two issues, firstly being "how often does *any* country act alone these days ? Politically it's usually necessary to work with others, and has been the case for much of this century. I believe the UK's last solo action was Sierra Leon (brilliantly "back of fag packet diplomacy" in my opinion, with a single frigate supported by an unpaid private military company flying an old soviet gunship turning the tide against a vicious insurrection)

Secondly, I think you're underselling the UK quite a bit by describing the Argentine forces as "poorly equipped" - they were running at least two British built Type 42 destroyers which were better armed than the ones we sent to liberate the Falklands and the air force was both well trained, brave and flying fairly modern types of aircraft. The infantry had more night vision and automatic weapons than the equivalent UK formations. That was quite a fight and there were no more than five or six countries in the world that could have pulled that one off - probably more like three or four.

 

[RobWilliams]

The ONLY difference between the "old" England(that ruled multiple colonies around the world) and today's "new" England is IMHO they have no real offensive capabilities. And I hope I dont offend any British person in here but the UK is a perfect helping hand to the US, like the NATO missions they carry out together. UK is a great assistant country to its Allies...

But alone I dont see how they have any offensive capabilities..

What specifically would you deem to be "offensive capabilities"?

IMO the only real element of "offensive capabilities" is long range strike bombers, everything else I can really think of the UK either has or is in the process of getting.

 

[hauritz]

Well, two issues, firstly being "how often does *any* country act alone these days ?

Actually that was my main point. Not even the US acts alone.

Most of Britain's strategic interests are the same as her allies, so it it is extraordinarily unlikely that she would ever have to go it alone.

 

[StobieWan]

What specifically would you deem to be "offensive capabilities"?

IMO the only real element of "offensive capabilities" is long range strike bombers, everything else I can really think of the UK either has or is in the process of getting.

Presumably not TLAM, Stormshadow, or a quartet of Trident armed subs I guess? Or a working Amphibious assault capability ? I dunno, if we don't have a working "offensive" capability I'm wondering what it'd consist of ?

 

[RobWilliams]

Presumably not TLAM, Stormshadow, or a quartet of Trident armed subs I guess? Or a working Amphibious assault capability ? I dunno, if we don't have a working "offensive" capability I'm wondering what it'd consist of ?

Or in the process of revigorating UK carrier-bourne strike, or 16 Air Assault Brigade, or 5th generation strike aircraft . . . .

I was looking at the UK's rapid reaction forces, not too shabby in the forms of 16 Air Assault Brigade and the RN Response Force Task Group.